[sword-devel] linking syntax
chrislit at crosswire.org
Sat Nov 29 02:26:35 MST 2008
Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
> The pros in the schema are wrong. I'm sure I've asked Patrick to change
> them. The actual spec has:
> <xs:attribute name="osisRefWork" type="osisWorkType" use="optional"
Ok. Prose errors aren't unheard of.
A second issue you raised, concerning standard meta workID values: What
should we go with?
For the first, I'm going to argue for Bible:. The spec uses it, as you
quoted. I've used it in a lot of shipping content. And, inevitably
someone will come along and ask why we have Bible lowercased--we'll say
"it's our camel-casing standard" and they'll respond "so hate Jesus?"
For the second, I have no preference, so long as we pick & standardize
on one. I think the filters recognize half a dozen options. There's a
"Strong" module now/soon, which might be an argument against "Strong:",
since then "Strong:" could point to that module specifically, while
"strong:" (for example) points to the user's preferred lexicon for
Strong's numbers (Strong, NASlex, etc.). The manual includes an instance
of "s:" but I suspect Todd is the source of that. That's concise, if not
necessarily clear. And "strong:" of course is very clear.
For the last, I'm sure I've seen "this:". But again that might be Todd's
work rather than anything we need necessarily follow. Programmers will
definitely understand it. Non-programmers might better understand
"self:" as you propose.
(To summarize my opinions: I strongly favor "Bible:", weakly favor
"strong:" (strongly disfavor "Strong:", and have no opinion on "self:"
Other opinions, from encoders especially, and particularly those who may
have used any of the above, would be welcomed.
More information about the sword-devel